Beaconville Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

The service was not always effective. Care plans and risk assessments were in place for people. However, there was a lack of guidance for staff on how to support some people safely. There was a programme of audits in place. However, these were not carried out consistently and had not identified the concerns found at this inspection. The registered manager was not working in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act and the Codes of Practice. This was a breach of Regulation 11, Consent, of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Staff told us they were well supported by management and were positive about their training and confident in meeting peoples' needs.

The service did not identify the lack of guidance for staff in peoples care plans and management told us they had not yet put this as a priority on the SIP (Service Improvement Plan). For example, a person needed support from staff to reposition every 2-4 hours. Although this was not documented in the care plan, staff and management told us the person needed support every 2-4 hours. However, records showed gaps between 6 to 10 hours. We were not assured that care and treatment was being delivered in accordance with the people's needs.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The service was not always working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the registered manager and staff did not understand the processes that must be followed to ensure people were not being restricted unlawfully. Whilst Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations had been applied for where staff were placing restrictions on people, mental capacity assessments and best interests decisions had not taken place in accordance with the law. For example, one person’s DoLs application detailed the restrictions placed on them, such as having their medicines administered, sensor alarm units and stair gates being in place to keep them safe. However, there was no MCA assessment or best interests decision record to show that the decisions had been made with the appropriate people, considering all possible options and this restriction was the least restrictive. There was not a robust audit process in place to ensure MCA and DoLS records were accurate.